arborescence

"yummy good feelings" seems unnecessarily dismissive. I think lots of people have an intuition that when their human communications are handled in an inhuman way (whether that's a phone recording, automated messages whether authored by a human or ai, etc), there is a lack of reciprocity involved that feels disrespectful.

This is a bit too cynical. It's impossible to understand the history green parties' opposition to nuclear energy without the context of their opposition to nuclear weapons. The argument went that "civilian" nuclear infrastructure was deeply interconnected with nuclear weapons. They share infrastructure. The existence of a civilian nuclear fuel cycle brings into existence a latent nuclear capability (you may recognize this theme from such films as the United States vs the Islamic Republic). Creating fissile material while avoiding diversion and proliferation requires the secrecy, security, and centralized technocratic control of what activists sometimes called the Atomic State, which they argued was incompatible with liberal democracy. I think these were quite serious arguments, though of course they'd persuade only if you're already bought in on unilateral nuclear disarmament.

I mean, it's not misinformation, though it may be incomplete. Taking the us example, in most states the larceny statute—the "crime" of theft, as you put it—does in fact require an intent to permanently deprive. Unlawful copying is not larceny or theft and no da could prosecutor could prosecute it under a larceny statute. It may of course be copyright infringement, which some people rhetorically analogize to theft. That analogy may be useful for some purposes, including for motivating normative intuitions. But it's categorically different as a matter of law.

Cliches annoyed people before LLMs. There is a whole microgenre of essay ranting about the proliferation of various annoying cliches, bits of jargon, etc. the proliferation of Claude prose is simply rendering certain turns of phrase into annoying cliches, which people are reacting to in the normal way. Cliches also get the point across but nonetheless lots of people find them grating.

I agree tech response is important here but like the deterrent effect of criminal prohibition on murder probably does prevent at least some murders.

They do not have a fiduciary duty that is enforceable in a court of law or equity. But the trusteeship model of representative government is basically how we've conceived of the duties of elected officials in liberal democratic republics since John Locke. As a normative matter, we feel that a public official who benefits their private interests at the expense of the public trust has violated their duties to the public. That just is what a fiduciary relationship looks like.